DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: additz on December 12, 2008, 01:12:23 PM
-
Hi,
another question regarding WWg.
Can WWg in Column expand into line ?
Elements in column expand as they were single elements ...
But if I look at Single element moves there are exceptions for WWg, Exp & Shp stating that they have to wheel unlike other single elements ...
Does that mean that Exp cannot expand, cause they would have to wheel, but cannot because the first element in the column remains stationary ?
(though they would have enough movement allowance ...)
And accordingly: WWg can neither expand for the same reason as the Exp can't nor because 160p are not enough to line up with the first WWg ?
Thanks
Axel
-
Does that mean that Exp cannot expand
Probably your are right and I have played it wrong until now.
So a column shouldn't include WWg or Exp (if not in first or last position).
Greetings,
Marcel
-
Yes, I agree. They can't expand.
-
I'm not 100% convinced ... yet.
Page 29, the section titled 'turn 90 degrees from a straight column into a line' mentions Expendables.
Further, page 27 : an expendable element can do a 180 degree turn.
-
Page 29, the section titled 'turn 90 degrees from a straight column into a line' mentions Expendables.
Indeed, it is still possible to 'turn 90o from a straight column into a line', all the Exp just have to pivot 90o.
(See the .gif).
But 'expand from a column' to the front couldn't be done.
-
That's a nice move isn't it? :) If the bases are longer than the width then you lose a lot more frontage (relative to the column length) on the turn. Maybe that's the way to keep the Exp under control - march them back and forth in front of the enemy and turn to the side when you have found your target.
However, is there an exemption on passing through a gap not sufficient for your frontage? This may be drawing a long bow but leaving a column is one of two instances where you can enter a gap insufficient for your own frontage : Exp#2 leaves the column by initially wheeling through the back corner of Exp#1 (he is allowed to do this given he is leaving a column and provided there is another element nearby with <80 pace gap to Exp#1?) and the way is then clear for all other Exp in the column. Any issues with that approach?
Andrew
-
That's a nice move isn't it? :) If the bases are longer than the width then you lose a lot more frontage (relative to the column length) on the turn. Maybe that's the way to keep the Exp under control - march them back and forth in front of the enemy and turn to the side when you have found your target.
My opponent has used its Exp's that way already, it is a nice move. ;)
However, is there an exemption on passing through a gap not sufficient for your frontage? This may be drawing a long bow but leaving a column is one of two instances where you can enter a gap insufficient for your own frontage : Exp#2 leaves the column by initially wheeling through the back corner of Exp#1 (he is allowed to do this given he is leaving a column and provided there is another element nearby with <80 pace gap to Exp#1?) and the way is then clear for all other Exp in the column. Any issues with that approach?
I am not sure about this approach, somebody else....????
-
Hi,
I agree totaly with the wwg, as they do not have enough movement to expand in the first place.
I do not agree with the "single Element move" argument at all.
The rules go like this:
Under Movement Section there is
1. a chapter on single element moves. There some Wheeled thingies (wwg and exp) and ships are forbidden to turn to flank but may turn 180 degrees only or by pivot or wheel.
ok.
2. a chapter on group moves. There there is no exception on who can do group moves. Group moves have a specific move patern, i.e. move the same speed or through the same angles EXCEPT as detailed in some special rules on formation changes.
ok.
3. Now, under the said formation change rules there is the provision, how to expand. There the sentence reads "the other elements move as by single element moves".
As I see it:
The "move as single elements" is NOT meant to preclude the exp and shp to leave the column. The Rules on Formation change etc. do NOT exclude Expendable. The "move as single elements" does mean, they need not conform to the normal group move restrictions, i.e. moving same speed, same angle etc.
If this was not so, the sentence "but not exp, wwg, shp" would have been much easieer, than "move as single elements". It is NOT intended here to exempt exp from the posibility to expand from column into line, but to free all Elements of the group move restrictions.
I see, that the wording is open to debate, but the simple conclusion that the sentence "move as single Elements" does IN EFFECT only mean "exp and shp may not expand" (wwg can not for want of speed) is contrary to the aim of the rule.
This would in effect mean, that ships could not go from column into line, also this was a comon manouver in reality for what I know.
Ships invariabl marched in columns but before they fought in lines with broadside to broadside, they formed in Lines bow to bow to fight each other, galleys and ships indifferently.
I do not know about exp, but would thinks they too came to the field of battle in column and expanded into line.
In the end, to expand from a "moving" (last move) column into a line IS different than to leave a (standing) column.
As the rules are meant to simulate somehow the reality, this -for me- can not be the conclusion.
Tilman
-
That's a nice move isn't it? :) If the bases are longer than the width then you lose a lot more frontage (relative to the column length) on the turn. Maybe that's the way to keep the Exp under control - march them back and forth in front of the enemy and turn to the side when you have found your target.
However, is there an exemption on passing through a gap not sufficient for your frontage? This may be drawing a long bow but leaving a column is one of two instances where you can enter a gap insufficient for your own frontage : Exp#2 leaves the column by initially wheeling through the back corner of Exp#1 (he is allowed to do this given he is leaving a column and provided there is another element nearby with <80 pace gap to Exp#1?) and the way is then clear for all other Exp in the column. Any issues with that approach?
Andrew
if that would be a problem, it would allways be a problem, not only for exp and shp, so the 90 degree wheel from column into line is valid imo.
Tilman
-
This would in effect mean, that ships could not go from column into line, also this was a comon manouver in reality for what I know.
...
As the rules are meant to simulate somehow the reality, this -for me- can not be the conclusion.
So you can read the rules in two ways (what's new ;D), but you prefer reality, which would make it possible. I can't argue with that. ;)
-
if that would be a problem, it would allways be a problem, not only for exp and shp, so the 90 degree wheel from column into line is valid imo.
Tilman
Hi
I'm not sure what you are referring to there. There are instances where there are exceptions to the rule (like leaving a column is a valid instance for entering a gap insufficient for your own frontage) so I'm not sure if I agree with 'once a problem, always a problem' in general. As for how this relates to Exp leaving column - I can't say because I'm not sure if I have understood you 100%.
Andrew
P.S. Regarding your previous analysis : unfortunately I have come across many instances where someone will say "I know that's what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right". I don't subscribe to that theory and that wasn't the full thrust of your argument. But I do agree with your assessment that, in the absence of a rebuttal from the author, the intention was not what has been interpreted in the original post. Participating on this forum and the Yahoo group has taught me that if someone wants to take a contrary interpretation then there is nought we can do about it.
-
if that would be a problem, it would allways be a problem, not only for exp and shp, so the 90 degree wheel from column into line is valid imo.
Tilman
Hi
I'm not sure what you are referring to there. There are instances where there are exceptions to the rule (like leaving a column is a valid instance for entering a gap insufficient for your own frontage) so I'm not sure if I agree with 'once a problem, always a problem' in general. As for how this relates to Exp leaving column - I can't say because I'm not sure if I have understood you 100%.
Andrew
I missunderstood you, I thought you where refering to the posibility of a coloumn facing to flank 90 degreees (as here too the corners would scratch through the Element in front when wheeling, which is allways so, when performing that manouver with whichever Elements). On Rereading I see, that you probably presented an alternative solution to the "exp. leave Column" problem, i.e. you say the exp could Wheel Through the Element in Front, because he may leave the coloumn by special exeption. Nice Idea.
Tilman
-
P.S. Regarding your previous analysis : unfortunately I have come across many instances where someone will say "I know that's what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right". I don't subscribe to that theory and that wasn't the full thrust of your argument. But I do agree with your assessment that, in the absence of a rebuttal from the author, the intention was not what has been interpreted in the original post. Participating on this forum and the Yahoo group has taught me that if someone wants to take a contrary interpretation then there is nought we can do about it.
Yes, saying "this can't be meant" would not be enough, it is simply another argument, when you have found an argument in the rules to solve a problem arising with a contradiction.
Else, my Lists of Things to clarify with the refereee before a tournament grows longer (I say attacking TF ....) and hope for version 1.1
Tilman
-
In my opinion most things don't need a clarification because the rules pretty much stand on their own. But there are a couple of contradictions / inconsistencies / definition that could be addressed. What is the concern with the TF?
Andrew
-
I missunderstood you, I thought you where refering to the posibility of a coloumn facing to flank 90 degreees (as here too the corners would scratch through the Element in front when wheeling, which is allways so, when performing that manouver with whichever Elements).
And it appears I misunderstood you! :) I think that potential problem was discarded because it is an issue with the basing which is not necessarily representative of the area occupied by the actual troops. (Again, not what the rules say but discarded for being impractical - much like your suggestion).
On Rereading I see, that you probably presented an alternative solution to the "exp. leave Column" problem, i.e. you say the exp could Wheel Through the Element in Front, because he may leave the coloumn by special exeption. Nice Idea.
It's just a thought. I don't know how it would stand up to a rigorous analysis, but if someone tried to stop me from expanding a column of Exp then I would claim this exemption.
-
I don't see any problem for an EXP column to expand turning all elements 90?. Geometrically is impossible to expand that colum on the front of the leading element.
-
What about the instance I raised of having an element less than 80 paces from the lead element? In such a situation Exp#2 in the column can enter a space insufficient for it's own frontage because it is leaving a column, and in so doing wheels through the back of Exp#1 (a legal move given I am leaving a column and entering a space insufficient for my frontage). Where does it say that I cannot do that? Given this particular move is an exemption, does the move actually have to be a wheel through the back of Exp#1 at all?
Andrew
-
What about the instance I raised of having an element less than 80 paces from the lead element? In such a situation Exp#2 in the column can enter a space insufficient for it's own frontage because it is leaving a column, and in so doing wheels through the back of Exp#1 (a legal move given I am leaving a column and entering a space insufficient for my frontage). Where does it say that I cannot do that? Given this particular move is an exemption, does the move actually have to be a wheel through the back of Exp#1 at all?
Andrew
Wheeling through another element is not "entering a space insufficient for its frontage". There is not a space there. It is an interpenetration.
-
Hi Lawrence
Understood, except that leaving a column (from position #2) and entering a space insufficient for your frontage involves some sort of 'interpenetration' - leaving a column is an exemption for entering small spaces and as such means you don't have to worry about how you get into the space, hence my contrived example. As I said it is drawing a long bow but I don't believe the intent (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) was to prevent the likes Exp (and Shp) from forming a line to the front from a column, especially given we do know Exp can do two other 'tricky' moves such as turn 180 and form a column to the side from a line.
Furthermore, a closer reading of the rules shows an Exp can only do a wheel of less than 90 degrees, yet an Exp is stated as being able to turn 90 degrees from a column into a line. Do we look at the letter of the rules or the intent? Per this contradiction, some might argue Exp cannot turn 90 degree from a column.
To me this raises the question of why wasn't there a wider audience for play testing??? Or as times move on, and based on (bad) rules experiences with 3.1, have we all come to explore the letter of the rules more intently? I don't know, but I still believe that if someone wants to take a contrary interpretation, there is very little I can do about it, if I want to finish a game. I'd rather play games than debate rules but (unfortunately) we have to go through this process if we want to have a more enjoyable game.
Regards
Andrew
-
the 90 degree limit for exp is for single element moves.
I don't see any limit if it is done as part of a group move.
-
Fair call.
-
the 90 degree limit for exp is for single element moves.
I don't see any limit if it is done as part of a group move.
Would it apply to a group expanding from a column, in which elements "move as if by single element moves"?
Note that this form of words is not used for the other group formation changes, so expendables etc can do these without constraint.
-
Hi Lawrence
Understood, except that leaving a column (from position #2) and entering a space insufficient for your frontage involves some sort of 'interpenetration' - leaving a column is an exemption for entering small spaces and as such means you don't have to worry about how you get into the space, hence my contrived example.
To me this raises the question of why wasn't there a wider audience for play testing???
Regards
Andrew
Consider a column of 3 blades.
Now take out the second rank blade and put it beside the column.
Now slide it back in to its original position.
Consider a line of two blades. Now move one blade sideways half a base.
Now take a third blade behind the line but facing 45 degrees left.
Advance this blade so its front corner enters tha half-base wide gap.
IMO these are examples of what is meant by "entering a space insufficient for its own frontage."
No interpenetration is involved in either case.
I'm not sure why elements expanding from column need a specific permission to do this, but it might be to allow them to deploy into the second rank of a three deep formation.
As for play testing, I suspect it was because most of the potential play testers still played DBM and it is very difficult to play both DBM and DBMM without getting confused. So they mostly decided to avoid confusion and didn't play test it. This particularly applies to keen competition players who are the ones that read rules most closely, stretch wording to its limit of interpretation and like everything to be clear and consistent.
-
the 90 degree limit for exp is for single element moves.
I don't see any limit if it is done as part of a group move.
Would it apply to a group expanding from a column, in which elements "move as if by single element moves"?
Note that this form of words is not used for the other group formation changes, so expendables etc can do these without constraint.
I think it would apply - but moves expanding from column do not involve wheels to get there - elements moving in this manner as single elements do not wheel/pivot to do it - they just move keeping their current facing & measure the distance in a straight line.
so as far as I can see it would have no effect there either?
-
This was an actual scenario I encountered of 'entering a gap insufficient for my frontage' which I have applied to the Expendables:
(http://www.imagef1.net.nz/files/Expansion.jpg)
The point being in that in my actual example, if element 3 expanded to the left of element 2 then it had to involve actually moving through element 2 if it 'moves as if by single element moves' - this was an actual example I had on table. My opponent claimed I couldn't expand but I could. The concept should be able to be used for Expendables.
-
Entering, or going through a gap means you are going through the gap, i.e. not interpenetrating the elements either side of the gap. If you were interpenetrating, the gap would be irrelevant. In fact the relevant rule on p 32 gives explicit pemission to enter the gap to
* elements that can interpenetrate
* elements expanding from column etc.
The second case clearly distinguishes them from elements able to interpenetrate.
Expanding from column etc does not give you the ability to interpenetrate. It gives you the ability to enter a gap without intepenetrating, when otherwise to enter that gap you must be able to interpenetrate.
The point which is at issue in your example using expendables is:
Can EXP2 change direction (from forward) to get to its final position?
If it was a single element move it can change direction only by a wheel or pivot of less than 90 degrees or a turn of 180, so there is no way it could do the move.
When expanding from a column, you must move "as if by single element moves".
Does the restriction for single element moves also count for moves that are "as if by single element moves", or does it apply only to actual single element moves?
IMO the restriction probably does apply, so you cannot expand from a column of expendables. But maybe Phil meant it not to apply.
-
Hi Lawrence
Assuming the gap is less than the base depth of the element trying to squeeze through the gap per my actual example, how does the element (of non-Exp) get there by single element move without passing through either of the elements on either side of the gap? I don't accept that it is simply lifted into place because it has to get there as if by single element move.
So let's accept for the moment that a single element (of non-Exp) actually passes through one or more of the elements making the gap in making its single element move when leaving the column. If so, the rules do not stipulate the way in which this achieved, so there is no requirement to actually contact both elements that make the gap in making this move. So by deduction, if a foot element can do this then there is nothing preventing the Expendable from making the same move.
If we don't accept that a foot element actually passed through one of the 'gap' elements, then how did the foot element get to its final position if it moved 'by single element move'?
Andrew
-
Hi Lawrence
Assuming the gap is less than the base depth of the element trying to squeeze through the gap per my actual example, how does the element (of non-Exp) get there by single element move without passing through either of the elements on either side of the gap? I don't accept that it is simply lifted into place because it has to get there as if by single element move.
So let's accept for the moment that a single element (of non-Exp) actually passes through one or more of the elements making the gap in making its single element move when leaving the column. If so, the rules do not stipulate the way in which this achieved, so there is no requirement to actually contact both elements that make the gap in making this move. So by deduction, if a foot element can do this then there is nothing preventing the Expendable from making the same move.
If we don't accept that a foot element actually passed through one of the 'gap' elements, then how did the foot element get to its final position if it moved 'by single element move'?
Andrew
The individual men making up the element passed through in single file, or in threes or whatever and then fell-in to their original formation once through the gap.
The same process as moving through a gate in a permanent fortification.
-
The individual men making up the element passed through in single file, or in threes or whatever and then fell-in to their original formation once through the gap.
Unless you are having me on Lawrence this is the part I am stuck on. If an element of foot can 'morph' its shape to squeeze through a gap, how is this moving 'as if by single element'? ??? I can't find the 'morphing' section in the rules - maybe you could help! :)
-
All restrictions specific to single element moves are listed in the section entitled "SINGLE ELEMENT MOVES"
There is no mention there or anywhere else that elements are assumed to remain rigid bodies during movement.
How else do you think they move through gates?
-
Or get a movement benefit for being on a narrow road.....
-
The issue of moving through gaps should be pretty simple - there are only 2 exceptions that allow you to move through a gap that is less than an element's width - given at the top of page 32 and i'm not going to re-type them here.
in hte case of hte expendables example asked about, the expendables are mounted so can interpenetrate the foot, so they can expand throug hthe gap (whether expendables should be able to interpenetrate foot may be arguable, but the rules allow it so they can)
As to the other question of whether expendables can expand from a column "as if by single element moves" - another thread has been raised...:) see http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=443.msg2752#new